Here is my letter to the Tribunal to support my application for a summary dismissal of Ronan (He calls himself Morgane) Oger's complaint. Mr. Oger believes he is a woman and is seeking to punish me through the BC Human Rights Tribunal for putting out 1500 eoection flyers calling him a biological male and telling voters God did not want them to vote for him or his political party, the NDP.

This letter is my request for a motion to dismiss the discrimination complaint launched against me by the complainant and his lawyer Ms. Quail. Please see Form 9.2 (attached) with my supporting documentation to substantiate this request.

Fundamental Freedoms protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

I am a citizen of Canada, and the Charter states that I have fundamental freedoms that have been found to be the foundation of Canada’s liberal democracy, particularly in regard to thought, opinion, belief, expression, and religion and conscience. The opinions that I expressed in the flyers that were issued involved the exercise of each one of these fundamental freedoms. Moreover, the flyers were issued in the context of an election which I have a constitutional right to participate in. I was concerned about the implied representation of the Complainant to the electorate in the False Creek Riding of Vancouver, BC, that the Complainant is a biological woman, when the Complainant is not. The Complainant is not capable of understanding women’s issues such a pregnancy, menopause, menstruation, etc. I felt obligated to inform the electorate that the Complainant was born as a male, had been in a heterosexual relationship with a woman and fathered children by virtue of this relationship, etc. All of the things expressed in the flyers are true. The Complainant has not sued me for defamation. Instead, the Complainant asserts that I have no ability to exercise my constitutional freedoms of thought, belief, expression and religion. The Complainant’s position is without legal merit and the Complaint should be dismissed.

The Arguments of the Complainant

On page two of Ms. Quail's, August 11th, 2017 letter opposing Gordon Watson's and CAFE's application for intervener status she wrote:

“There is also no meaningful difference between the factual circumstances of the Whatcott case and the instant case. Mr. Whatcott’s flyers in Whatcott promoted hate on the basis of sexual orientation while his flyers in the instant case promote hate on the basis of gender identity or expression.”

In actual fact there is a world of difference between the flyers that were before the Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs Whatcott and the flyers being considered today.

One only needs to go to the Supreme Court's website and scroll to the bottom of the “Whatcott decision” to see the flyers that the Supreme Court labeled “hate speech” to see there is virtually no similarity between those flyers and the ones being presently considered in this matter. Please see link here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 6/index.do

It is apparent from the Whatcott decision that debates on societal issues like transgenderism is expression that is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Paragraph 48 of the Whatcott decision reads:

“The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate.”

The flyer presently being considered is an engagement in dialogue on a social issue, and makes arguments that are very different than those found in the flyers in the Whatcott case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The flyer at hand is arguing it is impossible to change genders, that trying to do so is harmful, that transgendered persons can return to their biological identity as evidenced by Walt Heyer's testimony, that God wants potential voters standing for what is true and one way of doing that is by not voting for the complainant (who ran in the election as an NDP candidate) or for the NDP period.

None of these arguments were in the flyers considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Just because Ms. Ouail claims there is no difference between the flyers and simply because she asserts my latest flyer is promoting “hate” that is contrary to Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code, her assertion does not make it so.

Ms. Quail also wrote:

“One issue engaged in this dispute is whether the Respondent may rely on his right to free expression as a defence (sic) to an alleged violation of section 7 of the Human Rights Code. That question was canvassed and conclusively resolved in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.”

I doubt the issue of what is hate speech and what isn't hate speech is resolved conclusively by Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott, as two lawyers can look at my election flyer in the light of the Whatcott decision (one being Tom Schuck and the other being Susanna Quail), and one is certain I did not cross the line (Schuck) and the other is certain I did (Quail). If two lawyers with years of experience can't agree where the line for hate speech is, how can lay people know where it is?

Anyways, even though I am not a lawyer; I do have a post secondary education, above average reading skills, and a pretty good ability to logically interpret judicial decisions.

Ms. Quail refers to the Whatcott decision to argue she has an airtight conviction of hate speech against me. I look at the relevant excerpts from the Whatcott decision like this paragraph on the first page:

“The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” must be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant.”

And this paragraph:

However, expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings constituting hatred required to uphold the constitutionality of a prohibition of expression in human rights legislation.

And then I look at my flyer arguing the complainant is a man and that God is not pleased with his cross dressing and doesn't want Vancouverites to vote for him.

The Tribunal has a copy of my election flyer, but if there is any confusion a complete and unedited copy of my flyer can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10624

My understanding of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Whatcott is that disagreement with homosexuality and transvestitism is allowed, so long as public disagreement does not rise to the level of “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification”. As I read my flyer for the 20th time and look at it upside down and sideways, my conclusion is it does not rise to the level of detestation and vilification. I don't see how anyone who uses the usual rules of English interpretation can find “detestation and vilification” (speech that is prohibited) in my flyer. My flyer is protected speech under the Charter.

At the beginning of this complaint process I submitted multiple papers and studies which shows the science is on my side, a biological male will always be a biological male. The position one's gender identity should align with biological reality is a reasonable position to take and is not hateful. The public expression of this position should not only be allowed, it is the position of God Almighty, of more than half the world's population today and indeed should be the position adopted by the Canadian government, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, and by the complainant and his lawyer for their own good.

In light of the fact that the very Whatcott decision invoked by the complainant allows for debate and disagreement on gender identity issues and in light of the fact that both God Almighty and common sense is on the side of the defendant, and because the defendant provided a valuable public service by participating in the BC election and putting out 1500 flyers letting voters know that the complainant is a cross dressing biological male and that God did not want them to vote for him, this complaint against me should be dismissed immediately.

Furthermore, I believe I should receive an apology from the complainant and Ms. Quail. I would not object to financial compensation from the two of them for the violation of my Charter rights.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly;

I respectfully request that the Complaint be dismissed, with costs to myself.

Bill's supporting documentation to support my request for a Motion of Dismissal:

I attached this picture of the complainant from not too long ago for the Chair of the BC Human Rights Tribunal to look at and consider. In 2009 Ronan was not calling himself Morgane when this picture of him was taken by the Vancouver Sun in 2009. I also note the Vancouver Sun is not being sued for calling Ronan a "Dad."

I also attached this story from the National Post on sex change regret for the BC Human Rights Tribunal to consider. There is a statistical possibility the complainant will change his mind and go back to living as the biological male he is. Would I be compensated for my losses incurred from this Orwellian prosecution and would the order that I refer to Ronan only in feminine or gender neutral terms still stand if Ronan decides one day to be a man again?